Actually, I think Real Presence is very simple. Read the above quote from me.
OK, I admit that most Lutherans do not hold to consubstantiation.
You may be unaware that there is NO Eucharistic text where the word "change" appears AT ALL. In any context. In reference to anything. If I say, "this is a computer" that doesn't mandate that it underwent an alchemic transubstantiation from something that LOOKS like a computer but isn't. Saying, "this is a computer" mandates NOTHING from alchemy OR Aristotle's pagan theories.
The word Trinity is not in the Bible.
A computer was always a computer. But bread is not always the body of Christ. If it was always the body of Christ, then either you not really saying anything or you are saying too much. If you are saying that the Real Presence is in the bread just as the Real Presence is everywhere, then we are making a big deal about nothing. It is not much different than the symbol view. If you emphasize that it is more than that, then it sounds like pantheism. Now, I am sure you are not a pantheist. So how do you safeguard against pantheism without dogmatically defining what you really mean?
A creed in Scripture is, "You ARE the Christ." (same verb). Does this mandate that ERGO His human nature MUST have undergone an alchemic transubstantiation at the pronouncement of those words - leaving behind an Aristotelian Accident of a human being, so that He had the "ghost appearance" of a man but was no longer a man, "is" mandating "transubstantiation?" Before you answer, review those heresies regarding the two natures of Christ....
No. Christ was always God, from His birth. Your logic would be that when Jesus said that the bread was His body, that the bread was always His body. If the bread was always His body, then this smacks of pantheism. If before Christ said those words, it was just bread and then it changed to the body and blood of Christ, then it must have undergone a change. When something was one thing and then another it changed.
But how did it change? Did it change in form? No, it is still bread. It tastes like bread, feels like bread. So it could not have been transformed. But how else could it have been changed? The Church borrowed terms from Aristotle (not alchemy). Aristotle taught there was a difference between essence (or substance) and accidents (or form). Take, for example, human development. The baby changes into a child, a child into man. When I was baby I was still me. When I was a child I was still me. But my form changed. I was transformed into a child, and then an adult man. But my essence or substance (my me-ness) is still the same. The miracle of the Eucharist is that of the form changing, the substance changed.
When the Catholic Church only explicitly defines a point in theology, it does so in response to a heresy. For instance, the Church defined the two natures in Christ in order to respond to Arianism. The Church is content to leave things as a mystery until there is a heresy. Then it must respond. And in the Middle Ages, there was a renaissance in Greek literature. So this was the best way at that time to communicate the Christian truths.
It is all well and go to say it is a mystery and leave it at that until a heresy comes along. Then you are forced to define things as did the Catholic Church. So if you do not want to say that the bread changed into Christ, how do you respond to the pantheist that that bread, and everything else, has always been Christ?
What Lutheranism does NOT do is DOGMATICALLY declare how Christ becomes present and for how long. WE DON'T DOGMATICALLY SAY.
What you seem to be confused about an OPINION - expressed by many of the Lutheran Fathers - sometimes called Sacramental Union. This affirms that Christ is present IN THE SACRAMENT, as it is a SACRAMENT. In the distribution and receiving. But it does NOT say the Christ ceases to be present at the conclusion of that (although I admit, many Lutherans make that leap) and certainly not that Christ IS present as we naturally digest and in all that follows.
There is no dogma on this in Lutheranism.
You say this as if this is the way it should be. But if it is, then why stop there? Maybe we should not dogmatically define any doctrine. Should we get rid of the Trinity. which says that God is three persons and one essence. This sounds pretty Aristotelian.
Yes, SOME Lutherans affirm that Christ is present IN THE SACRAMENT.
.
But are they are wrong to think this way? How can you say that these Lutherans who believe in consubstantiation is wrong? To say that someone is wrong is to say a dogmatic statement. Since you think it just a mystery, and we should not even attempt to understand it, then then most to can say is you don't know. In fact, you cannot even say for sure that transubstiation is wrong.
It reminds me of the atheist declaring absolutely that there is no absolute truth. You are saying that we should not define dogmatically the Eucharist, but then how can you dogmatically say that we Catholic are wrong on the Eucharist?
When the Sacrament is over, so is the Presence. I agree - this is a matter where Scripture is SILENT, thus we have no dogma. Yes, the RCC does. It teaches that Christ is ALWAYS present - as the Sacrament is digested and all that follows (it would be helpful for me to share a discussion many of us had at a Catholic youth group meeting, but IMO the mere relating of it might be offensive; it is to me now that I'm Lutheran). Lutherans won't/don't go there. Dogmatically anyway. Christ is present where he promised to be present - in the Sacrament. Whether this ALSO means otherwise, too.... well, He doesn't say.
But you seem to not understand how huge a problem this is.
If Christ is still in the sacrament, and you throw Christ into the garbage, then this has to be a terribly grave sacriledge. It is one thing to say that something that we are content to not understand someone when it is merely theoretical, nut when we are talking about whether something is a sin or not, I think God would want us to know.
I recall reading once that a particular Lutheran church, which served grape juice instead of wine, allowed little children to drink it after church. How can Lutherans say that they just won’t go there???? If Christ is still present in there, then these little children are taking the host unworthily, which wrote that they are drinking to their own condemnation. Now, you may say that you do not think that they are condemning themselves, but how do you know for sure? You admit that you are infallible.
That is the point I am making. Once you admit that the Christ is in the Sacrament then the situation screams for an infallible magisterium! Does Christ remain in the sacrament from then on or does He leave after the service is over? If He remains, then what is the honorable way we can dispose of Him? Is grape juice sufficient as the species? What has to be done for the bread and wine to become (oops! We cannot say “become”. The LC says that is delving too much into the mystery) the body and blood of Christ? Can anybody do this or must it be a minister? What must a person do to be a minister? Can a minister get ordination papers off the internet? Can a woman become a minister? If no, is the real presence there even for an invalid minster?
It is not enough for the LC to say that that it won’t go there. These issues must be dealt with, and they must be dealt with from an infallible authority. If there are not dealt by an infallible authority, then the decisions could be wrong. And if wrong, then you may not be receiving the Real Presence or, even worse, you may be receiving Christ unworthily and thus bring condemnation on yourself.
